ライフサイエンスコーパス: RECIST

1 RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses to neoadjuvant chemother

2 RECIST ORR was 11.8% versus 27.3%, respectively (P = .00

3 RECIST, mRECIST, and EASL stratification was short of si

4 RECIST, mRECIST, EASL, and AFP response criteria were de

5 RECIST, version 1.1; modified RECIST; and PERCIST using

6 ponse occurred in 5.9% (WHO criteria), 2.0% (RECIST), 25.5% (mRECIST), and 23.5% (EASL criteria) of p

7 uation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) is the reference standard to assess efficacy

8 ation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) in patients with advanced melanoma treated

9 uation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) or death due to any cause, and was analysed

10 uation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), adequate haematological and end-organ func

11 uation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), and adequate haematological and end-organ

12 uation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), tumour biopsy or archival sample for bioma

13 uation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (exc

14 ation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST), and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) has not been rep

15 ation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 [RECIST 1.1]), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)

16 herapeutic response of Ewing sarcoma than 1D RECIST or 2D WHO measurements and show a significantly h

17 nt magnetic resonance images according to 1D RECIST, 2D WHO, and 3D COG measurements.

18 not be predicted by WHO (P = 0.25 and 0.62), RECIST (P = 0.35 and 0.54), EASL (P = 0.49 and 0.46), mR

19 denied surgery based solely on the lack of a RECIST or GCIG CA125 response.

20 CI 9.2-28.0; 297 events) for patients with a RECIST complete or partial response and 13.3 months (8.1

21 as achieved in 187 (56%) of 335 women with a RECIST complete or partial response and 73 (42%) of 172

22 st dose of nivolumab more than 6 weeks after RECIST-defined progression, and patients not treated bey

23 All RECIST responses were in patients receiving combination

24 t change after treatment, WHO (P = 0.06) and RECIST (P = 0.08) response at 1 month failed to reach si

25 ion for Research and Treatment of Cancer and RECIST.

26 ial: absolute changes, relative changes, and RECIST.

27 radiologist assessed response using Choi and RECIST.

28 Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria and RECIST 1.1.

29 EpSSG guidelines and RECIST are not interchangeable; neither technique demons

30 Comparison of EpSSG guidelines and RECIST resulted in 13 discrepant response classification

31 t between observers for EpSSG guidelines and RECIST was moderate (kappa = 0.565 and 0.592, respective

32 and 0.355 between PERCIST and imPERCIST and RECIST, respectively.

33 Response was assessed centrally per irRC and RECIST v1.1.

34 whereas changes in SUV(peak) or SUV(max) and RECIST 1.1 criteria did not predict survival.

35 The response rate between mRECIST and RECIST 1.1 was compared.

36 n PET parameters, overall survival (OS), and RECIST-based treatment response were tested by Cox and l

37 alkaline phosphatase, and subsequent PSA and RECIST response.

38 ith OS, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and RECIST response using Cox regression as well as receiver

39 d RECIST v1.1, response (modified RECIST and RECIST v1.1), disease control, and safety/toxicity.

40 Efficacy analyses were performed by applying RECIST 1.1 criteria to CNS target lesions by investigato

41 gression discontinued nivolumab before or at RECIST-defined progression.

42 Semi-automated RECIST measurements were available to clinicians online

43 ere compared with modified enhancement-based RECIST.

44 ically significant difference in PFS between RECIST nonresponders (n = 255) and responders (n = 20; H

45 ake the assessment of disease outcome beyond RECIST and could provide an important impact to the fiel

46 d judged to be eligible for treatment beyond RECIST v1.1-defined progression by the treating investig

47 n of patients who continued treatment beyond RECIST-defined first progression demonstrated sustained

48 for pexidartinib than placebo at week 25 by RECIST (24 [39%] of 61 vs none of 59; absolute differenc

49 Tumor burden was assessed by RECIST (version 1.0) after each cycle.

50 nonirradiated lesions, which was assessed by RECIST in patients with at least one available set of on

51 motherapy that is not adequately captured by RECIST in these large heterogeneous tumors.

52 ted with nonresponse to chemoradiotherapy by RECIST and with poorer prognosis.

53 radiologic progressive disease as defined by RECIST 1.1 in patients with clear cell renal cell carcin

54 overall response rate (ORR) as determined by RECIST 1.1 criteria.

55 h advanced WD/DDLS and measurable disease by RECIST 1.1 were enrolled from December 2011 to January 2

56 d seven other patients had stable disease by RECIST criteria.

57 aged 1-30 years with measurable disease (by RECIST criteria) in the following disease cohorts: rhabd

58 The presence of measurable disease by RECIST, the sum of nodule diameters greater than or equa

59 Among 50 patients evaluable by RECIST, the best response was one partial response (PR)

60 Response was evaluated by RECIST v1.1 and Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup criteria.

61 rogressive disease (PD) of irradiated HCC by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

62 d be safely irradiated and one measurable by RECIST version 1.1.

63 d point was objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST (version 1.0).

64 end point was overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST version 1.1.

65 Cediranib improved PFS by RECIST v1.1 (hazard ratio, 0.71; 80% CI, 0.54 to 0.95; P

66 ranib to platinum-pemetrexed improved PFS by RECIST v1.1 and response rate by modified RECIST in pati

67 point was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST.

68 tics with progression-free survival (PFS; by RECIST) were evaluated by Cox regression and Kaplan-Meie

69 tion of patients with disease progression by RECIST criteria within 7 months of study entry.

70 stigator-assessed objective response rate by RECIST in cohort one.

71 ary end point was objective response rate by RECIST v1.0; secondary end points included clinical bene

72 Response rates by RECIST: partial response (PR) 21% (17/82), stable diseas

73 failure to achieve an objective response by RECIST (negative predictive value, 91% [95% CI, 74% to 1

74 e, none experienced an objective response by RECIST (version 1.1); however, 17 (33%) showed durable (

75 Response by RECIST 1.1 was seen in a small group of patients (n = 22

76 , 15 (56%) achieved an objective response by RECIST 1.1.

77 , 15 (56%) achieved an objective response by RECIST 1.1.

78 le > 6 months [n = 7] or partial response by RECIST criteria [n = 3]) was 26.3% (95% CI, 13.4% to 43.

79 se at week 25, and was centrally reviewed by RECIST, version 1.1.

80 esponse, or stable disease (>/= 16 weeks) by RECIST 1.0 criteria.

81 and every six cycles, that is, 18 weeks, by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) ve

82 Based on survival analysis, conventional RECIST might underestimate the benefit of pembrolizumab

83 d with complete pathological necrosis (CPN) (RECIST: P = 0.07; WHO: P = 0.05).

84 According to CT RECIST at 12 weeks, there were 21 nonresponders and 11 r

85 The association between metabolic and CT/RECIST and pathologic response was tested with the McNem

86 predictive value for PFS and OS than both CT/RECIST and pathologic response at multivariate analysis,

87 redictive ability was higher than that of CT/RECIST response after 3 mo of treatment.

88 The predictive value of CT/RECIST response was not significant at multivariate anal

89 We describe RECIST and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) CA125 re

90 The largest area (WHO), longest diameter (RECIST), longest enhancing diameter (mRECIST), largest e

91 ger association with tumor response than did RECIST, EASL criteria, or mRECIST.

92 ib or erlotinib, and had assessable disease (RECIST 1.1) and tumour tissue samples for translational

93 prior BRAFi monotherapy, measurable disease (RECIST 1.1), and tumor accessible for biopsy.

94 r treatment predicted outcome (P = 0.086 for RECIST; P = 0.310 for change in SUV(peak); P = 0.155 for

95 ccuracy were 22%, 89%, 75%, 43%, and 49% for RECIST; 70%, 44%, 66%, 50%, and 60% for the Choi criteri

96 ed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.56 for RECIST, 0.57 for the Choi criteria, and 0.82 for PERCIST

97 cording to surface measurements derived from RECIST criteria.

98 djuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS and had RECIST and/or GCIG CA125-evaluable disease.

99 A2 mutation carriers with ovarian cancer had RECIST partial responses, as did two (50% [7-93]) of fou

100 Of 564 women who had RECIST-evaluable disease at trial entry, 348 (62%) had a

101 nctional MR was superior to current imaging (RECIST, mRECIST, and EASL) and biochemical (AFP level) r

102 immunotherapy-modified PERCIST (imPERCIST); RECIST, version 1.1; and immunotherapy-modified RECIST (

103 or up to 5 lesions), imPERCIST1, imPERCIST5, RECIST, and iRECIST.

104 lizumab resulted in a significantly improved RECIST v1.1 objective response rate for each prespecifie

105 tients (40%; P = .48), with no difference in RECIST response: BB, 5.9% versus LCB, 6.0% (difference,

106 trial was designed to detect a difference in RECIST v1.1 PFS at the one-sided 0.1 level using a strat

107 he current, limited set of target lesions in RECIST 1.1 may not reflect overall tumor load or respons

108 Two decades later, RECIST was advanced to streamline WHO and improve its re

109 regression, low posttreatment CA 19-9 level, RECIST partial response, and reduction in tumor volume w

110 Lesions that fail to meet RECIST size criteria (ie, those < 10 mm) at diagnosis ma

111 Each response assessment method (RECIST, mRECIST, EASL, and 3D methods of volumetric RECI

112 RECIST, version 1.1; modified RECIST; and PERCIST using both tumor lesion metabolic ac

113 asis of RECIST and, when available, modified RECIST (mRECIST) at first follow-up.

114 ECIST) version 1.1 for NSCLC and by modified RECIST criteria for MPM.

115 by RECIST v1.1 and response rate by modified RECIST in patients with unresectable MPM.

116 By modified RECIST v1.1, cediranib numerically increased PFS (hazard

117 s included overall survival, PFS by modified RECIST v1.1, response (modified RECIST and RECIST v1.1),

118 Lesion response after TACE by modified RECIST was 58% (14 patients with 24 lesions).

119 rrent study, RECIST, SWOG criteria, modified RECIST (mRECIST), and modified SWOG (mSWOG) criteria wer

120 e response rate according to immune-modified RECIST, analysed by intention to treat.

121 IST, version 1.1; and immunotherapy-modified RECIST (iRECIST) in NSCLC patients.

122 months v 5.6 months) and increased modified RECIST v1.1 response (50% v 20%; P = .006).

123 Best response at 4 months (modified RECIST) was stable disease: 12 of 23 (52%) in the ADI-PE

124 Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), modified RECIST (mRECIST), and European Association for the Study

125 Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), modified RECIST (mRECIST), and European Association for the Study

126 , 7%, 30%, and 30% based on RECIST, modified RECIST, PERCIST(SULpeak), and PERCIST(MTV) response crit

127 by modified RECIST v1.1, response (modified RECIST and RECIST v1.1), disease control, and safety/tox

128 different MRI- and PET-derived morphologic (RECIST and the MR-adapted Choi criteria) and metabolic (

129 ) on PFS and substantial effects of mRECIST, RECIST, and EASL criteria (.05 < P < .1).

130 However, neither RECIST 1.1 criteria nor changes in SUV(peak) or SUV(max)

131 Compared with nonresponders, RECIST responders showed lower coarseness (mean, 0.012 v

132 n for 1D and 2D measurements on the basis of RECIST and COG therapeutic response thresholds (concorda

133 age correlation was assessed on the basis of RECIST and, when available, modified RECIST (mRECIST) at

134 of reference (tumor volume) on the basis of RECIST, COG, and WHO therapeutic response thresholds.

135 The uni- and bidimensional measurements of RECIST (hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]:

136 We investigated the performance of RECIST using a pooled database from 50 clinical trials w

137 y, which leads to concerns about the role of RECIST in evaluating tumor response in trials with TCAs.

138 On RECIST progression, FOLFOX plus cetuximab or FOLFOX was

139 nse rates were 7%, 7%, 30%, and 30% based on RECIST, modified RECIST, PERCIST(SULpeak), and PERCIST(M

140 free survival (PFS) rate, which was based on RECIST, version 1.1.

141 No prostate-specific antigen or RECIST responses were seen with weekly dosing.

142 IST) version 1.0 for pleural mesothelioma or RECIST version 1.1 for peritoneal mesothelioma.

143 ential, but not convincing, improvement over RECIST to predict overall survival (OS).

144 /= 30% reduction in longest dimension as per RECIST, >/= 50% reduction in volume as per INRC, or >/=

145 Response was assessed per RECIST v1.1 by independent central review at week 12, th

146 achieving an objective response assessed per RECIST version 1.1 by independent central review and ove

147 radiologic complete response rate (CRR) per RECIST; secondary endpoints included feasibility, metabo

148 Those with stable disease per RECIST at 12 weeks were randomly assigned to cabozantini

149 .5% in patients with progressive disease per RECIST v1.1 but nonprogressive disease per irRC (n = 84)

150 84 (14%) experienced progressive disease per RECIST v1.1 but nonprogressive disease per irRC.

151 ligible patients had measurable disease (per RECIST version 1.1) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology

152 progression assessed by the investigator per RECIST version 1.1 or unacceptable toxicity.

153 (TTP) and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1.

154 oints were objective response rate (ORR; per RECIST/Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 i

155 mit treatment beyond initial progression per RECIST v1.1 might prevent premature cessation of treatme

156 ry end point was objective response rate per RECIST v1.1.

157 f patients who had an objective response per RECIST 1.1 and was assessed in all dosed patients and al

158 complete responses and partial responses per RECIST 1.1).

159 independent central review every 9 weeks per RECIST v1.1.

160 xity nor any of the SUV parameters predicted RECIST response.

161 ADC change relative to baseline (ADC ratio), RECIST, EASL criteria, and mRECIST.

162 While we recognize RECIST is far from perfect-in need of modification as a

163 valuated by investigators per immune-related RECIST.

164 All patients were followed for response (RECIST, version 1.1) (primary aim 2, safety) and toxicit

165 o assess inter-observer agreement of revised RECIST criteria (version 1.1) for computed tomography as

166 Standard RECIST cut points demonstrated predictive ability simila

167 Standard RECIST response was assessed with CT after 3 mo of treat

168 In the current study, RECIST, SWOG criteria, modified RECIST (mRECIST), and mo

169 nge metrics are not meaningfully better than RECIST in predicting OS.

170 ed a significantly higher response rate than RECIST (40.8% versus 3.9%; P = 0.025).

171 ive value and negative predictive value than RECIST in five of six treatment comparisons and lower pr

172 This work reinforces that RECIST version 1.1 perform well for response assessment

173 The RECIST 1.1 response rate for both ipilimumab-refractory

174 The RECIST-defined radiological response rate was lower than

175 to test differences in median PFS among the RECIST 1.1 progression events.

176 ensus guideline-iRECIST-was developed by the RECIST working group for the use of modified Response Ev

177 s was performed by 2 observers, based on the RECIST criteria (version 1.1).

178 Prior to first progression, the RECIST-defined objective response rate was 14% (5 patien

179 ts), for which 30% and 20% correspond to the RECIST categorization.

180 metastases of breast cancer according to the RECIST criteria (version 1.1).

181 the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria.

182 on achieved an overall response according to RECIST (95% CI 15.6-42.6; one-sided p=0.00053).

183 s objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST (version 1.1).

184 primary end point was response according to RECIST 1.0 (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors

185 reatment response was evaluated according to RECIST 1.1 as well as molecular imaging criteria (Europe

186 eover, in lesion-based analysis according to RECIST 1.1 there was no association of tumor response wi

187 time point, who were determined according to RECIST 1.1 to have progressive disease.

188 s assessed by the investigators according to RECIST 1.1.

189 ) achieved objective responses (according to RECIST [version 1.0]), with median response duration of

190 ng treatment schedule, response according to RECIST classification, and survival.

191 nse (OS), the initial response (according to RECIST criteria), and the relationship between the numbe

192 cal outcomes compared with that according to RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors or o

193 Response according to RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was

194 ssessed objective response rate according to RECIST v1.1 and the investigator-assessed objective resp

195 ents underwent tumor assessment according to RECIST v1.1 every 8 weeks.

196 ll response rate was determined according to RECIST v1.1.

197 e or partial response) assessed according to RECIST version 1.1 by an independent review committee.

198 onfirmed best overall response (according to RECIST version 1.1), adjudicated by independent review.

199 ad an objective tumour response according to RECIST version 1.1, assessed for all the treated patient

200 rinkage and progressive disease according to RECIST.

201 llow-up (EoS), and was assessed according to RECIST.

202 esponse (all partial responses) according to RECIST.

203 8%, 49%, and 24%, respectively, according to RECIST; 25%, 49%, and 26%, respectively, according to SW

204 rafenib by Choi (29%) was higher compared to RECIST (4%).

205 Alternative cut points to RECIST standards provided no meaningful improvement in O

206 Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) measurable disease and evidence of progression o

207 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1).

208 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1).

209 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST version 1.1) during or after treatment with trast

210 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (target hazard ratio, 0.60).

211 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) (unidimensional), Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG

212 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 criteria at 2 years for HCC patients, with t

213 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 was 13.5%, median progression-free survival

214 esponse evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) 1.1 and Immuno-related Response Criteria (IrRC)

215 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 guidelines, and the CT images obtained after

216 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, other radiographic changes in tumor size an

217 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1.

218 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and iodine-123 ((123)I) -metaiodobenzylguanidine

219 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) at 12 wk.

220 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) for measurable metastatic disease.

221 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) on CT images obtained at 12 weeks (n = 32).

222 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) or bone lesions in the absence of measurable dis

223 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) require measurement in one dimension.

224 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) response.

225 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 by independent central review.

226 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1-defined progression.

227 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1.

228 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0 for pleural mesothelioma or RECIST v

229 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 and classification of therapeutic re

230 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 by blinded independent central revie

231 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 for NSCLC and by modified RECIST cri

232 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 guidelines.

233 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 in the full analysis population (all

234 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 progression-free survival (PFS).

235 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 was used.

236 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, a baseline Eastern Cooperative Onco

237 se as per Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, absence of brain metastasis, adequa

238 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, adequate haematological, hepatic, a

239 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, had adequate organ function, had re

240 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, including duration of response.

241 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1.

242 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1.

243 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1.

244 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and two-dimensional (2D) measurements defined b

245 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), modified RECIST (mRECIST), and European Associa

246 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), modified RECIST (mRECIST), and European Associa

247 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, in the response-evaluable populati

248 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, was 38% (95% confidence interval [

249 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1.

250 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined first progression.

251 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

252 sponse Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors (RECIST).

253 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

254 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

255 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

256 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

257 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST); Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance

258 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1) by independent central review.

259 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1).

260 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1) assessed by independent central rad

261 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1).

262 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1) regardless of histology.

263 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1), and progression-free survival (PFS

264 esponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1), as assessed by a masked, independe

265 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1), progression-free survival, overall

266 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST]), and seven patients responded to CD8(+)-enriche

267 esponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST], version 1.1) previously treated with one or two

268 sponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) in cancer immunotherapy trials, to e

269 sponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) criteria.

270 sponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1, including two complete responses an

271 All trials used RECIST or WHO radiographic response criteria and the pri

272 95% confidence interval [CI], 43%-71%) using RECIST 1.1 (17/34 responders in the (18)F-FMISO-positive

273 CT or MR imaging scans were analyzed using RECIST, SWOG criteria, mRECIST, and mSWOG criteria (incl

274 Response was assessed using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) an

275 scans 3 mo after therapy, as assessed using RECIST, version 1.1.

276 9, and week 18 for clinical assessment using RECIST.

277 , were evaluated for tumor response by using RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1,

278 evaluated the treatment response on CT using RECIST 1.1 and the immune-related response criteria (irR

279 PRRT response was assessed on CT using RECIST 1.1.

280 ponses were assessed every other cycle using RECIST (version 1.1).

281 onse), as assessed by the investigator using RECIST version 1.1.

282 Best response was assessed locally using RECIST (version 1.1).

283 remissions, one partial response (PR) using RECIST criteria (two PRs using immune-related response c

284 ified at each computed tomography scan using RECIST.

285 done at week 4 and then every 8 weeks using RECIST 1.1.

286 resholds for studies that did not adopt VCOG-RECIST guidelines varied in stringency.

287 d 0.198 between PERCIST and imPERCIST versus RECIST and irRC respectively).

288 and an increased probability of a volumetric RECIST response (odds ratio, 1.09, 1.09, and 1.10, respe

289 d with change in tumor volume and volumetric RECIST response using linear and logistic regression, re

290 mRECIST, EASL, and 3D methods of volumetric RECIST [vRECIST] and quantitative EASL [qEASL]) was used

291 The primary end point was RECIST 1.1 objective response rate (ORR).

292 een groups A and B at 1 and 3 months by WHO, RECIST, EASL, mRECIST or ADC measurements.

293 Size (WHO, RECIST), enhancement (EASL, mRECIST) and diffusion-weigh

294 Response was assessed with WHO, RECIST, mRECIST, and EASL methods according to their res

295 ith mRECIST and EASL criteria and 66.7% with RECIST.

296 ld therefore be evaluated in accordance with RECIST criteria, using the single longest dimension.

297 ificantly higher response rate compared with RECIST; it also demonstrates acceptable intra- and inter

298 ed the extent of surgical cytoreduction with RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses.

299 months (8.1-20.1; 171 events) for those with RECIST stable disease.

300 tial response and 73 (42%) of 172 women with RECIST stable disease.